US pharmacists and the morning after pill

[_alanna]

I find this article utterly appalling. How dare these pharmacists impose their morals on their customers... especially when those customers have a prescription from their doctors

Comments

[ar_gemlad]

On the one hand, I think that employees should be able to refuse to do things against their moral code (eg serving alcohol in a supermarket if drinking is against their religion), as long as the service is still provided.

But then I think of strange situations, for example, if a religion prohibited drinking alcohol only to women, and the supermarket cashier in the previous example served booze to men but not women. My initial argument obviously breaks down at this point as this kind of situation is unworkable.

Thinking about my example combined with yours has just put a rather bizarre image in my head - a supermarket tannoy announcement along the lines of "Supervisor to checkout 17 please - someone wants to buy condoms".

Sorry, I'm rambling now...

[cardinalsin]

It would be easier if shops simply specified in their recruitment criteria what staff will be expected to do. Moral code objections would be thusly nullified. Of course you then have the problem of employers refusing to do stuff on the basis of their moral code, which seems more in line with what the article is talking about.

[_alanna]

Re employees, I imagine that's probably what will start to happen if this situation continues in the US.

Employers is trickier, but there must be some professional standards you have to achieve before you can call yourself a 'pharmacist'... so it will largely depend on what the standards body decides... which will probably depend on legal decisions such as those the article mentions.

[_alanna]

I'd be happy to tolerate that position as long as, as you say, "the service is still provided". The idea that some of the pharmacists were retaining the women's prescriptions is just plain wrong.

But even so, I still object to the pharmacist's moral code being imposed on those women. I'll bet the pharmacist would object if I tried to force my (purely hypothetical) moral code on her and browbeat her into having a medical abortion, or refuse to acquiesce to a DNR request, or refuse to sell her meat products in a supermarket (you can bet I wouldn't keep my job long in that last example :P)...

If one profession can refuse to fulfill parts of their job descriptions on moral grounds, it's descrimination if other professions can't do this as well.

[lathany]

I have some (smallish amount) of sympathy with chemists who feel that the morning after pill is against their moral code. However I believe that if this extends to refusing to sell it then they should have a prominent sign in their shops saying so.

What made my blood boil was the aside (for which no evidence was given, admittedly) that some chemists will refuse to give back the prescription thus stopping the woman getting their prescribed contraceptives elsewhere. These people should be sacked on the spot for such religious dictatorship action.

[cardinalsin]

some chemists will refuse to give back the prescription

That, IMO, is theft.

[_alanna]

Yeah, I was just thinking that too.

[kawolski]

Morning after pill != Blood Transfusion

The need for a blood transfusion is typically life threatening. The need for a chemical abortion isn't. A better comparison is a Catholic storekeeper refusing to sell condoms or a Mormon storekeeper refusing to sell alcohol or tobacco products.

Not all doctors have to perform abortions nor are they required to give prescriptions of the drug to their patients. There are some that hold the Hippocratic Oath (which was later changed) quite dear to them and their profession. Some old guy pharmacist living in a country town in the Bible Belt that's been doing this as his livelihood for the last 30 years shouldn't have to resign because the FDA approved an abortion pill, and I'm willing to bet those are the types of people that are refusing to dispense the drug, not fresh-out-of-pharmschool young adults. It's not his fault the woman got knocked up in the first place, not his fault that she was too "traumatized" to go anywhere else (That's the phrase Americans typically use to set up an upcoming

[_alanna]

Morning after pill = Blood transfusion in so far as both are 'dispensed' by someone, both have been prescribed to individual patients by their doctors, and a third party should have no right to interfere with that because of their own private moral code

[kawolski]

I don't know about England, but in America, you can't get a blood transfusion at the local pharmacy. And if the guy doesn't stock morning-after pills, he doesn't have them! Do you think he has a display of the pills behind his counter to taunt women and tell them "Sorry, you can't have them! Nyah nyah!" And let's say he did sell them, but was sold out at the moment. Then what? Oh, she's screwed! Sue the pharmacy! They didn't have the pills she needed and she didn't want to drive to another store!

Chemical abortion is not a life-threatening necessity and GUESS WHAT? YOU DON'T NEED TO BE PREGNANT TO GET THEM PRESCRIBED TO YOU! If you have a doctor's prescription, Planned Parenthood and many other pharmacies can MAIL it to you! She's the fucktard that wasn't prepared, not the pharmacist with his morals, regardless of how "outdated" they may be. If she was a rape victim, the hospital has these pills available.

But...I guess it's easy to blame the pharmacist.

[_alanna]

You can't get a blood transfusion at the local pharmacy in UK either. But I think you kinda missed the point of the analogy...

UK pharmacists do stock Levonelle. I'm surprised US pharmacists don't.

Chemical abortion can be a medical necessity. As for 'you don't need to be pregnant to get them prescribed'... well, the point is rather that you don't know whether you're pregnant and you'd rather not wait to find out. In the UK, our postal service certainly isn't up to mailling pills within 72 hours!

As for the last part of your post, I just really don't understand where you're coming from. (Btw - please keep your language under control on my LJ).

[easternpromise]

WTF???! How is anyone else using birth control any of a pharmacist's damned business in the first place? They're there to fill out prescriptions as stated on the form, not deliver moral judgements. What total prudes and idiots! I wonder in that case how many young and vulnerable women are going to be left without the medication their doctor has prescribed them?!

[_alanna]

On an (almost) related note... how come you haven't joined the ladiesloos yet?

[easternpromise]

The who?

[_alanna]

Here. You have to apply to join, but as long as one of us vouches that you're a lady, you'll be accepted ;o)

[kawolski]

I was under the impression that women are independent individuals. Isn't that the feminist mantra? "We don't need men! We are womyn!"

The woman's the one with the baby factory. She's the one that has to be responsible and say NO to sex if she's not ready for it.

She's also the one that has TOTAL CONTROL over what happens to the baby's life if she gets pregnant. Only SHE can make the decision whether or not to keep the baby. A man can't make that choice for her.

[kawolski]

grr..this was supposed to be a reply to this comment.

[lathany]

Isn't that the feminist mantra? "We don't need men! We are womyn!"

I've yet to meet a feminist amongst my peers who actually says (or thinks) this. I have, however, met many people who run down feminists by claiming that they all say this. These people do not impress me.

[_alanna]

I agree with what Lathany said.

Every baby has two parents. If a baby results from a split condom, both parents are responsible for it. If neither party bothers with contraception, they're both responsible for the resultant baby. (If the woman says she's on the pill but actually isn't, that's different, and the only circumstance I can think of under which I'd agree with what you're saying.)

A man can say NO to sex too....

Yes, by law only the woman can ultimately decide whether or not to have an abortion because it's her body. But most nice, normal-minded women will make that decision along with the man. Because the baby is half his.